Casagranda v. Donahue

• Decision Date: 22 November 1978
• Docket Number: No. 14183,14183
• Citation: 178 Mont. 479,585 P.2d 1286
• Parties: Rita CASAGRANDA, Executrix of the Estate of Michael McLaughlin, Deceased, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Mary E. DONAHUE, Prudential Federal Savings and Loan Association of Butte, a corporation, and Bernice Howell, Defendants and Respondents.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

Page 1286

585 P.2d 1286

178 Mont. 479

Rita CASAGRANDA, Executrix of the Estate of Michael McLaughlin, Deceased, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Mary E. DONAHUE, Prudential Federal Savings and Loan Association of Butte, a corporation, and Bernice Howell, Defendants and Respondents.

No. 14183.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted Sept. 5, 1978.

Decided Oct. 4, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 22, 1978.

William N. Geagan, Butte, for plaintiff and appellant.

Alexander & Harrington, Johnson & Kebe, Poore, Roth, Robischon & Robinson, P. C., Roe & Kiely, Butte, for defendants and respondents.

SHEEHY, Justice.

This appeal comes from a summary judgment of the District Court, Silver Bow County, quieting title in two joint bank accounts.

Michael McLaughlin, decedent, was born in Ireland, February 24, 1894, and died in Montana, March 18, 1975. As a young man, he emigrated to the United States, settled in Butte, Montana, and became a naturalized citizen. He worked most of his life in the Butte mines from which he contracted a disease known as silicosis which necessitated his retirement and ultimately led to his death.

Although decedent was never married, he had a close relationship with Vina Rowe, until her death November 10, 1963. Decedent and Vina Rowe maintained joint checking and savings accounts in various Butte banks. On November 15, 1963, following Vina Rowe's death, decedent closed a savings account at the First National Bank of Butte, Montana, which contained $13,978.46 in the names of decedent and Vina Rowe. The entire amount was used to open a new savings account in the same bank in the names of decedent and respondent, Mary Donahue. Both parties signed the deposit agreement. On November 22, 1963, an additional $3,000 was deposited in the account by decedent. On February 2, 1964, a savings account at Prudential Federal Savings and Loan Association of Butte, Montana, bearing decedent's and Vina Rowe's signatures was closed and reopened in decedent and respondent's names. Again, both parties signed the signature card, creating a joint tenancy in the account.

Respondent is decedent's cousin and was his close friend throughout his lifetime. Respondent lived in Butte until 1963, at which time she accepted employment with the Federal government and moved to Washington, D. C., where she now resides. On vacations to Butte, respondent spent considerable time with decedent discussing the distribution of his property upon his death. His desires changed frequently. Respondent did not attempt to withdraw any money from the joint savings accounts during decedent's lifetime. However, no agreement was ever made with decedent to hold or use the funds in the bank accounts for specific purposes.

Decedent executed a Will on November 1, 1966. Appellant, Rita Casagranda was named executrix. By the terms of the Will, decedent bequeathed $1,000 each to appellant, respondent, Catherine E. Donahue and Mrs. Mary Murphy, to be paid out of his estate. The residue of the estate was bequeathed to his niece, Mrs. Daniel Coll.

Following decedent's death, appellant instituted this action to quiet title in the two savings accounts. Appellant's complaint, filed in District Court, Silver Bow County, alleged respondent, First National Bank of Butte, Prudential Federal Savings and Loan and Bernice Howell, a companion of decedent, have no right, title or interest in the savings accounts. A hearing on an order to show cause was held November 14, 1975. The bank and savings and loan association took no active part in the litigation stating they would comply with the final outcome. Bernice Howell, who cared for decedent just prior to his death, took the position she would have an interest only if executrix was successful in bringing the accounts into the estate.

Appellant produced a letter written December 1, 1966, by respondent and addressed to decedent. Appellant contended at the hearing that statements made in the letter constituted a renunciation by respondent of her interest in the joint savings accounts. In part, the letter stated:

"As I told you in my last letter, Mickey, your money is yours to do with what you want. I hope you don't feel an obligation to include me in your will . . ."

Upon conclusion of the hearing the District Court issued a temporary injunction prohibiting respondent from withdrawing any money from the accounts, pending final determination of the dispute.

Numerous interrogatories were exchanged by the parties. Motions for summary judgment were filed by both parties and on September 22, 1977, the District Court entered summary judgment in favor of respondent. This appeal followed.

The ultimate question to be decided is whether summary judgment was properly granted.

Four contentions are urged by appellant to support her claim as executrix to the money in the savings accounts.

The primary contention is that a joint tenancy never existed between the decedent and respondent in the two savings accounts. The District Court should have considered evidence regarding the decedent's intent. Appellant was ready to present evidence at trial that decedent had directed respondent to distribute the money in the accounts to certain relatives if he should die before making a Will. Appellant argues the law in Montana involving joint bank accounts is unsettled as it applies to this case and summary judgment was improperly granted.

A joint interest is defined in section 67-308, R.C.M.1947:

"A joint interest is one owned by several persons in equal shares, by a title created by a single will or transfer, when expressly declared in the will or transfer to be a joint tenancy, or when granted or devised to executors or trustees as joint tenants."

The essential characteristic of a joint tenancy is the right of survivorship. In B. & B. Co. v. M. O. P. Co. (1901), 25 Mont. 41, 70, 71, 63 P. 825, this Court said:

". . . We cannot agree with the courts which hold that the legislature has power to convert existing joint tenancies into tenancies in common. The right of survivorship the indispensable ingredient and characteristic of the estate, and not a mere expectancy or possibility, as, for example, is the inchoate right of dower accrues as a vested right when and as soon as the joint tenancy is created, and the legislature is without authority to devest or interfere with such right. A joint tenant cannot be so deprived of his property. Constitutional limitations, state and national, prohibit it . . ."

A joint bank account has a special attribute which allows either joint owner, by virtue of the contract with the bank, to acquire dominion over the entire account by drawing a proper order on the bank. Nevertheless, a joint bank account is otherwise subject to the same rules as other joint tenancies. State Board of Equalization v. Cole (1948), 122 Mont. 9, 195 P.2d 989. Either party can acquire the whole account either by withdrawing it during the lifetime of the co-owners or by survivorship.

Cole stood for the proposition that, in Montana, signing a signature card containing an agreement that the deposit is payable to either of the co-depositors or the survivor settles the question of donative intent to make a joint tenancy. Appellant cites an Arizona decision, O'Hair v. O'Hair (1973), 109 Ariz. 236, 508 P.2d 66, wherein it was held that the mere form of a bank account is not regarded as sufficient to establish the intent of the depositor to give another a joint interest in or ownership of it. We find the Montana rule represents a more reliable manner for determining questions concerning the ownership of joint bank accounts. This should...